A woman has the right to do with her body as she wishes. Just because she gets pregnant, it doesn't mean someone else should be able to tell her what do with her body or her growing baby. Only women bring children into the world. They should have the final say in this matter.
lenore1986 wrote: It has been scientifically proven that life begins at the moment of conception. Therefore to have an abortion is to commit murder, Which is immoral and illegal. Not to mention, the constitution clearly states that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For a women to have an abortion is to deny her child the right to live which is unconstitutional. I believe a woman should have no choice in the matter. She should have the baby and then let someone else take care of it.
Tut tut! Such ignorant twaddle.
Life is not the issue, your pig was alive too, before you had that sausage. As was the lettuce you ate in the bap with your burger, etc, etc. I do wish people would learn to read what has already gone before rather than vomit their opinion out as if were gold dust.
Killing another human being *can* be murder but more often than not, isn't. A foetus is not a human being, so the murder issue is utterly moot, end of. Constitution does not even come into it, even ignoring the fact that the USA is not the world.
Your single biggest error lies right at the start of your diatribe about rights though (ignoring the nonsense of rights itself...) with 'child'; it's not a child, it is not a human being, it is a bundle of cells known as a foetus. Carried full-term with no problems it will develop into something which within a few months *will* be a child, but even at birth it has effectively no mind whatsoever. However, birth is a sensible and realistic point at which to say "treated as a human being, albeit an imature one". I'll leave the silliness of "immoral" alone as well, it's too easy to tear apart and not worth the repeat.
when will people get it? does no one have any power of foresight whatsoever?
From a legal standpoint, abortion is all or nothing. you cannot distinguish it as a right limited to women who have been sexually assaulted. THINK a little:
Scenario 1: woman is raped. woman becomes pregnant. woman's rapist is not convicted. she already has enough to deal with knowing that her rapist is free, but now she must cope with the fact that she will be forced to bear his child or be named a criminal herself if she tries to abort it. NOW, before you say, "durpadur, why can't she just put it up for adoption?"
A: the experience of birth alone could be emotionally traumatic without even accounting for the fact that it's a child begotten in the most horrible way
B: the woman may not want to bring a child into the world who she must for her own sanity (as is her RIGHT) give away because of the trauma the child may undergo
C: the woman may believe (and don't scoff, this is not a proven or unproven theory) that the child will have a predisposition to in some way emulate its other progenitor.
Scenario 2: A girl gets pregnant. she doesn't want the child, but she can't have an abortion and either fears that she may be harmed by someone if it is discovered that she is pregnant, so she can't go full term and give the baby up for adoption OR she simply can't live with the idea of bringing a child into the world that she can't keep, whether for her sake OR the child's. She is desperate and afraid. She cries rape. Whether convicted or not, an innocent man's reputation may be destroyed, and that kind of accusation will stay with him for the rest of his life.
Get it? NOW, (which i am a member of, no pun intended) there is at present no state in the U.S. that defines a fetus under 3mo as a person. This means that if abortion is made illegal, it violates only one party's rights: the pregnant female. Don't let Right-Wing conservatives do this... Roe V. Wade is in danger right now.
I think it should be entirely the women's decision. If its rape or what ever, definitely but if her husband gets her pregnant and she doesn't want a baby at the time she should still be aloud.
Also, you know how there's all these foundations and what nots for abused kids and kids that don't get looked after enough? Well I think allot of that comes from parents who have kids as teens or if there not making enough money. Sometimes they want to keep there kids and they just suck as parents, but sometimes they just cant get an abortion so it makes the kids life horrible.
Another good reason for abortion I think is (I don't want to offend anybody with this,) if your pregnant sometimes doctors can tell if your child is going to be completely paralyzed or there brain goes into that vegetable state kind of thing and I think its more humane to get an abortion then instead of having your kid and it just cant live a good life and its really sad. (Don't confuse what I just said as me saying if you find out your kid has downs syndrome or something you should get an abortion because that's not what I'm saying). But overall I'm for abortion
I think that legislation is overrated as a means of dealing with abortion issues. A lot of the problems that lead to people seeking abortions are so far from legal or right themselves that legislation may not be terribly effective.
I agree with injun: the effort spent in stoning clinics would be better spent helping people raise the children that are already alive, but maybe for slightly different reasons. Single mothers often have it tough enough that helping one out might give some people a few new ideas about forcing a pregnant woman to give birth.
Also if some of the pamphlet waving set spent more time on provision of education and medical supplies there is a marginal chance that less abortions would be required at all.
anarius write: Hmm...maybe it would be better if a law was made for males and females to sign a legally binding contract to either: forfeit the right to reproduce temporarily-(vasectomy or tubes clipped and tied paid for by federal or start government) or keep that ability and deal with future consequences. A reversal procedure clause-for reversing aforementioned procedures available by paying a fee...So you'd pay to have a child. People already pay fees for having children, but this way accidents don't just happen...How's that?
It still misses in many areas. (rape, date rape, even casual sex with consenting adults who aren't going to sign contracts) Would raising car insurance to exhorbitant levels ensure accidents don't just happen??!!?
Hmm...maybe it would be better if a law was made for males and females to sign a legally binding contract to either: forfeit the right to reproduce temporarily-(vasectomy or tubes clipped and tied paid for by federal or start government) or keep that ability and deal with future consequences. A reversal procedure clause-for reversing aforementioned procedures available by paying a fee...So you'd pay to have a child. People already pay fees for having children, but this way accidents don't just happen...How's that?
Mine in cases of rape and incest it (SHOULD DEFENITLY BE ALLOWED) in other cases im undeiced
but whats your views?
It's up to people what they want to do, but personally I could never do it. I think there should be a limit as to how many abortions you can have and if you go over that then you should have your tubes cut.
I personally am sick of the abortion debate, but I will make some simple statements and leave quietly.
-Abortion is in itself a horrible, nasty thing with long-term emotional and psychological effects. So is pregnancy.
-Except certain tortures, giving birth is the most painful thing a human can experience.
-There's WAY too many people.
Em's 2p's worth: My views on abortion go thus...it's a bloody hard decision to make, and ppl should be left the hell alone to do just that. There is an argument for saying if ppl don't want children they should take steps to make sure they don't concieve, but lets not be naive and assume everyone has the choice. Rape, incest, abundant other crap should be taken into account when forming an opinion. End of, as far as I'm concerned.
I'm pro-choice. The maximum gestation period in which one can receive an abortion is still prior to any cortical development.
Christians want to take the simplistic route and say that an embryo equals a human being; but what is a human being without a neocortex?
The neocortex does not even begin to develop before the 5th month of gestation. All basic functions before that (heart beat, kicking, etc) are just brainstem reflexes, not indicative of higher cognition.
Basically, what I'm saying is that everything that we associate with "life" (emotion, memory, thought, motor control, sensation, awareness) has not even started to develop at the time of abortion. So I would argue that, within this time period, you are not taking a human life, because one does not yet exist.
Just an opinion, though.
Okay I've avoided this thread in the past and it has a long history, covering many things from rape to the day after pill.
I agree with Ungoliant's post above dated way back in 2004 and have a feeling with the buzz happening in Dakota and other states that it's going to be hot in here again.
I'm hopefully adding something new and would like to point out that the enormous amount of wasteful energy that right to lifers put into protesting at clinics and targeting abortion doctors (in itself a huge irony) that their time and efforts may be better spent donating to and aiding single mothers. Thus, hopefully alleviating the stigma associated with a welfare mom's supposed drain on society, not to mention the possible psychological damage to the child.
It has been scientifically proven that life begins at the moment of conception. Therefore to have an abortion is to commit murder, Which is immoral and illegal. Not to mention, the constitution clearly states that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For a women to have an abortion is to deny her child the right to live which is unconstitutional. I believe a woman should have no choice in the matter. She should have the baby and then let someone else take care of it.
Gaidheal write: I certainly hope so. Vixen gets the credit from me coz I'm sweet on her, though, to be honest. Also, it's strongly suspected he has returned with another stupid profile as "Opera_Ghost" but he appears to be trying very hard to deny this. I can't say I care if he actually acts his age this time around.
the harder he denies it's tht much more clear tht it is! children what are ya going to do with them? they think they know it all and we as older and wiser can't teach them nada cause they are so very stubborn!
I certainly hope so. Vixen gets the credit from me coz I'm sweet on her, though, to be honest. Also, it's strongly suspected he has returned with another stupid profile as "Opera_Ghost" but he appears to be trying very hard to deny this. I can't say I care if he actually acts his age this time around.